Classics and the Western Canon discussion
The Magic Mountain
>
Week 9.2 -- Myhneer Peeperkorn (Concluded)
date
newest »
newest »
Not an event but a reflection that may be worth some thought. Wehsal is infatuated with Clavdia. He offers an observation to HC that makes me wonder if we have settled on a proper description for HC's own feelings towards her yet.
..life is desire, and desire is life, and life can't be its own enemy...Good God in Heaven what a piece of business it is. Flesh desires flesh, simply because it is not your own, but belongs to another soul--how strange and yet, when viewed in the right light, how unpretentious, how unabashedly benign...The desire of the flesh wanders here and there, it is not bound, not fixed,which is why we call it bestial. But once it is fixed on a given human being with a face, why then our mouths speak of love.
Is this just overwrought melodrama (as HC seems to feel)? Or is there a thematic issue here? Again, I am aware of how so many of these people don't seem to really be alive. They are all so obsessed with what is happening to their bodies (taking temperature every couple of hours) that they have lost any capacity for natural expression. I wonder if this is what Wehsal is reminding us of.
..life is desire, and desire is life, and life can't be its own enemy...Good God in Heaven what a piece of business it is. Flesh desires flesh, simply because it is not your own, but belongs to another soul--how strange and yet, when viewed in the right light, how unpretentious, how unabashedly benign...The desire of the flesh wanders here and there, it is not bound, not fixed,which is why we call it bestial. But once it is fixed on a given human being with a face, why then our mouths speak of love.
Is this just overwrought melodrama (as HC seems to feel)? Or is there a thematic issue here? Again, I am aware of how so many of these people don't seem to really be alive. They are all so obsessed with what is happening to their bodies (taking temperature every couple of hours) that they have lost any capacity for natural expression. I wonder if this is what Wehsal is reminding us of.
Zeke wrote: "'...how unpretentious, how unabashedly benign...The desire of the flesh wanders here and there, it is not bound, not fixed,which is why we call it bestial. But once it is fixed on a given human being with a face, why then our mouths speak of love.'..."This is one of those passages for which I want to know and understand the nuances of the native language in which the passage was written. The "bestial" (bovine) seems strange here, but it fits in feel with "unpretentious" and "unabashedly benign." But why, in English, "mouths" rather than "hearts"? The connotations are so different -- translation for words, translation for meaning, translation for....
What are we learning here about Mann? What within the story itself?
Don't particularly expect answers, but those are the kinds of questions passages like this sometimes raise for me.
Peeperkorn asks HC if he loves Clavdia, and HC avoids the question. For the first time, Peeperkorn is able to speak with some articulation and doesn't stammer. He rejects HC's evasion and finally gets HC to admit that "the use of informal pronouns achieved its full meaning." But he never says that he loves Clavdia. (He even says at one point that he is "her representative" with respect to MP, which I find extremely weird.)But then HC asks the same exact question of Wehsal, "Are you really so in love with her?" and he is completely disgusted by Wehsal's positive and passionate answer.
I think HC admires MP's ambiguity as much as his charisma. He is attracted to the greatness of his personality, but also the fact that he doesn't stand for anything. He even mimics MP's speech patterns at times. On the other hand, someone like Wehsal, who is simple and honest and clear, just disgusts him.
What is the significance of the waterfall? There are any number of places the picnic expedition could have gone. But they go to a waterfall, and to get there they have to pass through these mysterious, almost scary, woods. There must be underlying meanings here, but I'm not getting them. Is anybody?
Everyman wrote: "What is the significance of the waterfall? ..."Only clue I have seen so far; I don't have my own:
"In spite of his powers, Peeperkorn cannot make himself understood because the wild waters drown out his words. He is helplessly exposed to an even more elemental force than he is himself, namely nature. His great influence over others is set against his weakness where coping with life is concerned...."
I am reminded of the headlines about the tornado in Oklahoma having, what, five times? the power of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.
Lily wrote: ""In spite of his powers, Peeperkorn cannot make himself understood because the wild waters drown out his words. He is helplessly exposed to an even more elemental force than he is himself, namely nature."I'm not sure who you are quoting here, but it's important to note that Peeperkorn refuses to move from this spot by the waterfall. It isn't merely that he cannot make himself understood -- he does not want his words to be understood. His message, if he has one, is profoundly non-verbal. Remaining in this place is intentional. Rather than being helplessly exposed to the elements, I think he is harnessing them to magnify the power of his pantomime.
It's a wonderful scene though. It seems to me like a pagan "last supper," or Eucharist celebration, especially at the end:
They saw his head tilt to one side, saw the ragged bitterness on his lips, the image of the Man of Sorrows. ...the holy lewdness of the heathen priest. He lifted his glass, passed it in a semicircle before the eyes of his guests, and downed it in two, three gulps...
Thomas wrote: "I'm not sure who you are quoting here, but it's important to note that Peeperkorn refuses to move from this spot by the waterfall...."Sorry. The perspective @6 on Peeperkorn was from here[:-( !]: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature...
In re-reading the text, I found it interesting to note the "illness" of nature as the waterfall was approached: "...Hardly any needles were visible, just curtains of moss -- a ponderous, bizarre, disfigured landscape cast under a sickly spell. These woods were not doing well, they were ill with this rank lichen that threatened to suffocate them...." (737)
M.P., for all the power exuded at Flüela Valley waterfall, returned to Berghof to use the strange contents of the etui we can only surmise his faithful Malayan valet handed him.
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-phot...
This blog includes a picture of the falls (in winter, with bridge) as well as this blogger's comments on the chapter: (view spoiler)
Not sure this is the waterfall of MM: http://www.alpentourer-bilder.de/bild...
I wonder how far they had to travel by horse-drawn landaus. Here is an automobile trip into the valley with a bit of running water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoPRDb...
Ahh.. this tells that the waterfall was formed by a barrier constructed after a flood in 1874 and was frequently a turning point on walks from Davos, only about a short distance: http://books.google.com/books?id=CLhD...
Flüela Valley -- far end. Our party would not have traveled this far, just found this interesting in exploring for picture of the falls, so am including as sidebar here: http://fotoswiss.photoshelter.com/gal...
A rather mythological interpretation of M.P. and Hans: (Use caution or avoid if concerned about spoilers.) (view spoiler)
Flüela water fall:
PS: I searched for a picture which shows better the place below the fall where Mynheer Peeperkorn ordered to serve the meal, but I couldn't find one.
Thorwald wrote: "Flüela water fall:..."Wonderful! Thanks, Thorwald.
(The one that showed up for me must be some place else in Flüela pass -- the one you have posted matches the antique winter season scene we've seen elsewhere.)
(The picture Thorwald posted has disappeared, at least for me. Google will sometimes do that to stock pictures; I am rather surprised the one I posted is still there. Anyway, I was taken enough by what Thorwald posted that I checked out his source (it had a German domain) and added it to my background notes. If, like me, your browser no longer shows the picture @9, try this:
http://www.heimatsammlung.de/topo_unt... )
It is too good not to see it if possible.
Thomas wrote: " It isn't merely that he cannot make himself understood -- he does not want his words to be understood. His message, if he has one, is profoundly non-verbal. Remaining in this place is intentional. Rather than being helplessly exposed to the elements, I think he is harnessing them to magnify the power of his pantomime. "Yes, Naphta and Settembrini are silenced, they are like fish without water, helpless in the face of an overwhelming authority, whereas Mynheer Peeperkorn performs best when no talk is possible.
Last Supper ... yes!
(view spoiler)
German wording: Thomas Mann shortens the word "Wasserfall" to "Fall" (same in English I assume), which means decline/decay as well as "fall" in "Fall of House Usher".
And the word "Donner"/"Thunder" is used, and again "Wucht", I already explained this - all to describe the effect of the waterfall's noise.
Perhaps there is much covering the reality...the disease as a cover for reality, the moss covering the pine needles, the sibilant roar of the waterfall covering M.P.'s words. During the time in which H.C. came clean of what had earlier transpired between himself and C.C. and the current status, M.P.'s head was turned a bit away in deep reflection. A man of emotion took this confirmation of what he suspected seriously. I suspect that as a result, he made a speech of how he had "settled" this all in his mind at the waterfall to his companions....to their unhearing nods and uncomprehending attention. He purposely wanted to make the speech inaudible so to not have them stop his plan but somehow he wanted to announce it nonetheless apparently in the presence of the great gifts of life and powerful nature. Sadly, the plan was not stopped but revealed later that night.
Thorwald wrote: "German wording: Thomas Mann shortens the word "Wasserfall" to "Fall" (same in English I assume), which means decline/decay as well as "fall" in "Fall of House Usher"."
Interesting. And this is also MP's goodbye with his friends, though they don't know it.
I want to draw another parallel to Hitler: He, too, commited suicide and had a "fall". Maybe you know the movie "Der Untergang" = "Downfall" showing the last days of Hitler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downfall...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/
There are several scenes in this film which remind me of Peeperkorn.
The director: "We know from all accounts that he was a very charming man – a man who managed to seduce a whole people into barbarism."
Critics wrote: "Hitler was, after all, a human being, even if an especially obnoxious, detestable specimen. We well know that he could be kind and considerate to his secretaries, and with the next breath show cold ruthlessness, dispassionate brutality, in determining the deaths of millions."
The latter is fully true for Mynheer Peeperkorn, too, who is a gentleman on the one side and wants to enjoy to see an eagle killing its prey with the blood flowing on the other side: No reflected morals, just feeling.
I would like to re-read MM sometime. But having finished the book 2-3 weeks ago I have found it psychologically impossible to go back and re-read chapters to stay synch with the group.
Wanted to throw out a couple things from the Peeperkorn chapters.
(1) The waterfall. Peeperkorn made the arrangements. And the waterfall was the goal. I know the word goal was used.
If we think of the metaphor that "Time is a river," I think we could view the waterfall as time violently running out...for Peeperkorn...since he was the one who wanted that destination. Did he know already that he would be committing suicide that evening? (It was that evening, wasn't it?)
(2) Silence. Throughout the book it seems that all the important things are said "unsaid" (like when Hans Castorp and Joachim "walked back to their rooms in silence" ... words to that effect.) Numerous..."whispers" of important things... Or it went "unspoken"... and that which was unspoken was always important.
The chapter "Snow" was entirely silent.
Again, the important stuff is that which Mann writes between the lines.
Or like when Hans Casoorp pours his heart out to MC... in French... which, if you don't read French is almost as though he was silent. I didn't get to "hear" the important things.
And now Peepercorn...though not literally silent... IS silent... No one can hear what he says. Though they know it must be important. There was that nice line, "They sat silently, amid the clatter."
I think the theme of "silences" in this book could be developed... the truly important things in one's life are never spoken. {Settembrini and Naphta speak all the time... and they don't say much that is important}. {IF HC is telling important self-revealing information to Mann is keeping that silent.}
Maybe something along the lines that the truly, truly important --self-revealing--thoughts/feelings one has are almost never verbally shared. Like HC in "Snow"... alone... and as far as I see he never shares his revelations with anyone.
Wanted to throw out a couple things from the Peeperkorn chapters.
(1) The waterfall. Peeperkorn made the arrangements. And the waterfall was the goal. I know the word goal was used.
If we think of the metaphor that "Time is a river," I think we could view the waterfall as time violently running out...for Peeperkorn...since he was the one who wanted that destination. Did he know already that he would be committing suicide that evening? (It was that evening, wasn't it?)
(2) Silence. Throughout the book it seems that all the important things are said "unsaid" (like when Hans Castorp and Joachim "walked back to their rooms in silence" ... words to that effect.) Numerous..."whispers" of important things... Or it went "unspoken"... and that which was unspoken was always important.
The chapter "Snow" was entirely silent.
Again, the important stuff is that which Mann writes between the lines.
Or like when Hans Casoorp pours his heart out to MC... in French... which, if you don't read French is almost as though he was silent. I didn't get to "hear" the important things.
And now Peepercorn...though not literally silent... IS silent... No one can hear what he says. Though they know it must be important. There was that nice line, "They sat silently, amid the clatter."
I think the theme of "silences" in this book could be developed... the truly important things in one's life are never spoken. {Settembrini and Naphta speak all the time... and they don't say much that is important}. {IF HC is telling important self-revealing information to Mann is keeping that silent.}
Maybe something along the lines that the truly, truly important --self-revealing--thoughts/feelings one has are almost never verbally shared. Like HC in "Snow"... alone... and as far as I see he never shares his revelations with anyone.
Adelle wrote: "I would like to re-read MM sometime. But having finished the book 2-3 weeks ago I have found it psychologically impossible to go back and re-read chapters to stay synch with the group. Wanted ..."
Next week you'll be free to say anything, since it will be the last week and we'll be finished reading.
I do like your thought on the waterfall -- perhaps not violently "running out" as much violently interrupting the flow. But Peeperkorn does run his life out, so you have a point.
I also like your comment about the theme of silences. I need to think about it more, but I can see where you're getting it from.
Yes, that's better wording: "violently interrupting the flow.". Better. P didn't actully die violently.
What do the biographies say about Mann's knowledge of Hitler at the time M.M. was written?
Lily wrote: "What do the biographies say about Mann's knowledge of Hitler at the time M.M. was written?"As I already pointed out earlier, Hitler was not taken serious at 1924, more a ridicilous figure at the margins of politics, just in jail. Surely Thomas Mann did not think of him.
Under this perspective Thomas Mann's work is a great work of literary divination. He did not know what exactly would come but he divined well the basic lines of what will come:
A gentleman, a man of emotional competence, a man of musical competence, who will put aside the quarrels of right and left (as you did read quickly over the quarrels of Settembrini and Naphta), who will lead the people to friendship and harmony (who does not want this?) at the costs of freedom and reflected morals (which you don't realize to be a big problem until it is too late if you live mainly up to your feelings). This it the Hitler phenomenon: Good vibrations ... but good vibrations only ... with the monster living secretly in the dungeons beneath (like the concentration camps of which was no talk in German public).
Somehow, Thorwald, you make it sound so simple, so obvious, so straightforward.Once M.P. is viewed as a trope for Hitler, it seems difficult to consider him otherwise. Milton's Satan fares better.
Lily wrote: "What do the biographies say about Mann's knowledge of Hitler at the time M.M. was written?"I don't know specifically, but Hitler was basically an nonentity during the time Mann was writing MM.
Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "What do the biographies say about Mann's knowledge of Hitler at the time M.M. was written?"I don't know specifically, but Hitler was basically an nonentity during the time Mann was w..."
That's what Thorwald says @19, which is part of why positioning M.P. so heavily as the anticipation (prophecy?) of Hitler is so problematic for me in attempting to interpret and understand M.M. I simply don't see the evil (whatever that might mean) -- and am not convinced it is absent from either the S or the N scenario either.
Lily wrote: "That's what Thorwald says @19, which is part of why positioning M.P. so heavily as the anticipation (prophecy?) of Hitler is so problematic for me in attempting to interpret and understand M.M. "I agree on one, the more specific, level. But on another level, less specific and more general, the groundwork for Hitler had to be being laid gradually during the early 1920s. Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch was in 1923, so he must have had some feeling that the country may have been ready for his ideas (it wasn't, of course, but after a year or two in prison he came back much stronger). So the concepts and ideas which he was to advocate must have been festering at some level. It's not impossible that Mann picked these up, not specifically to Hitler, but more generally to the despair of the defeat in WWI, the privations of the people, and the resentment against the leaders who had failed the people, so that he is portraying the social environment which led to Hitler without knowing who the exact person to take advantage of that social environment was.
This may be all nonsense, of course. But I am reminded that several critics talk about the book as a commentary on the broader social issues of the pre-war time, and he may have continued to be aware of those social issues developing as he finished the book.
Everyman wrote: " But I am reminded that several critics talk about the book as a commentary on the broader social issues of the pre-war time, and he may have continued to be aware of those social issues developing as he finished the book. ..."I don't disagree with that at all -- in fact, I may posit some sweeping possibilities myself as we make closing comments. However, it seems that there are many ebullient, "feeling" personalities that make "good" things happen as well as counterparts that do "bad" things or lead others to do so. While thinking is vitally important, it certainly isn't the only personality trait that, for example, creates wealth, as M.P. apparently has done. Likewise, T.M. may have been envious of Hauptmann and attributed at least somewhat more than his physical traits to M.P., but that doesn't necessarily make M.P. seem likely to lead major numbers of people down a malicious path.
I'm not denying the overlap in personality types -- just suggesting a more general reading that can be played for meaning in multiple ways. I may not "like" M.P., but I'm not sure of the case to make him the Satanic figure of M.M. And he may indeed have been created as somewhat of a warning figure, as may have been others among the characters.
Lily wrote: "... why positioning M.P. so heavily as the anticipation (prophecy?) of Hitler is so problematic for me in attempting to interpret and understand M.M. I simply don't see the evil (whatever that might meant) ...... Milton's Satan fares better. ...
... I may not "like" M.P., but I'm not sure of the case to make him the Satanic figure of M.M. And he may indeed have been created as somewhat of a warning figure, as may have been others among the characters."
Well, it heavily depends on the view of Hitler. How he really was. The common image today: Hitler was demonic, beer-hall-primitive, not sympathic at first glance, he shouts, is cold-hearted. And he was of the political "right", against the "left".
What I want to communicate: This image is wrong. Everybody searches for the ideology in Hitler. Today most see him as extremist of the political right. But ... you can see him as an extremist of the political left, too: A socialist workers' party with a majority of workers among the voters, trying to create the paradise on earth. Against the evil of capitalism which is a jewish invention, according to Hitler (Do you know Karl Marx' essay on the "solution" of the "Jewish question"? You should have a glimpse into it).
The key idea is: Looking for Hitler's ideology is simply looking at the wrong place. He was neither left nor right. Neither Naphta nor Settembrini. Every attempt to find a rational order in Hitler's view fails at a certain point. He was also no Satan like Milton's Satan revolting against god - instead he played the role of the redeemer himself!
Hitler just removed the idea that rationality is of any value and put all emphasis on the idea of racial character. Consequent and strict ideology of whatever kind, left or right, is wrong for him. He just lived up to the feelings which he felt "in his blood", so to say. He really left any idea of civilization in favour of the "voice of nature" in him, the "voice of god", if you will. He even was not decided if he believes in god or not, and did it if he felt so.
If Lily says she simply does not see the evil, then she is in good company with many Germans in 1933. Hitler was young, smart, modern, not caring for all these bewildering ideologies. Especially women were in favour of Hitler ... Hitler was really good at making what we moderns would call "good vibrations".
Thorwald wrote: " Especially women were in favour of Hitler ...."Thx, Thorwald. :-(
Lily wrote: "Thorwald wrote: " Especially women were in favour of Hitler ...."Thx, Thorwald. :-("
You are welcome :-)
... let us assume that modern men and women would be immune!
Thorwald wrote: "Lily wrote: "Thorwald wrote: " Especially women were in favour of Hitler ...."Thx, Thorwald. :-("
You are welcome :-)
... let us assume that modern men and women would be immune!"
Don't we wish? :-(
I found M.P. as portrayed by Mann a strange creature. The Christ-like parodies seemed particularly weird to decode as to where or what Mann was trying to say -- was Mann bashing M.P.'s character or Christianity or both or doing something else entirely. Those seemed separate from magnetism of personality or hale-good-fellow, I'll buy this round of drinks, I've got a pretty woman on my arm aspects of M.P., or the I'll let you guys (S&N) do the arguments, just let me know what we should implement, which seems plausible as to how M.P. ran his businesses and gained his wealth.
I read many of the comments you all made during the last month. Good job, but I feel Peeperkorn got less then he deserves. It's a pity that his Dionysian character is mentioned only in passing - to understand him we need to stress his essential vitality. After Chauchat and Naphta he is the third 'dog from the the basement' (a Freudian characterisation used by Symmington) to champion the cause of emotion against Settembrini's rationalism. But what a figure he is! He towers far above the other inhabitants of the MM. It seems that the god of irrationality, Dionysos himself, has made his entry in our story.
This retired businessman makes things happen, he is a personality many like to follow. Not because of what he says, but because he radiates vitality. He wakes people from their lethargy, and he certainly is a healthy antidote to HC's preoccupation with death. He does all that, even while he knows that he has come to the MM to die (alone among the Olympians Dionysos is thought of as a god going through the cycle of death and resurrection).
Peeperkorn must die because age and illness have drained his capacity for emotions, his only reason to live. While he does not like to reason (though perfectly able to speak sensibly when he wants to) his wordless message seems that life has no purpose outside itself. Now that may not convince us (after all, most of us want more than jenever), but no doubt life would be a sad affair without his energy, without some of this l'art pour l'art.
Peeperkorn's weird influence on people may be disquieting, but basically he is a positive figure. He reminds us of the fact that no amount of talking will answer all our questions. And that in the eternal struggle between Apollo and Dionysos there can be no winner.
Wendel wrote: "I read many of the comments you all made during the last month. Good job, but I feel Peeperkorn got less then he deserves. It's a pity that his Dionysian character is mentioned only in passing - to..."Peeperkorn works well as Dionysos in the Nietzschean world view of struggle of Apollo vs. Dionysos. Dionysos, the god of wine and pleasure, of wild and untamed emotions.
The question is whether Thomas Mann wanted to express the view of an equal balance of both, or that one is over the other, or that one has to win finally over the other. IMHO it is the 2nd possibility.
Peeperkorn is not only running against Settembrini, he is running against Naptha, too. Both are silenced in their rational exchange of opinions.
Peeperkorn supports HC in having dark feelings leaning towards death, by talking of poisons, by admiring a killing eagle, by searching death himself, by silencing the real life of thought in order to live life as if it was a dream, without reflection.
Basically, Peeperkorn is the ultimate negative figure, Satan himself, tempting the sinners to sin by sweetness and pleasure, as the devil always does. He wants us to believe that reason and rationality is useless, and feeling is all. Peeperkorn does not only want to be an aspect - he wants to be all.
IMHO the educated man clearly has to prefer Apollo over Dionysos, like Plato wanted thought to rule over the lower instincts. Lower instincts have their place, but a lower place. IMHO this is culture, this is humanism, this is enlightenment, this is all the good which was developed in the Western world and which makes it superior to less developed parts of the world.
Wendel wrote: "I read many of the comments you all made during the last month. Good job, but I feel Peeperkorn got less then he deserves. It's a pity that his Dionysian character is mentioned only in passing - to..."I agree that we have shorted Peeperkorn. It may be worth while remembering that the most important festival of Fifth-Century Athens -- an era which we now view almost entirely for its political and intellectual attributes and literature -- was dedicated to Dionysus, the god of wine and revelry, and that the most important religious center for women was the Eleusinian Mysteries, which originated from the lust of Hades.
While Settembrini and Naphta represent the intellectual, Peeperkorn represents Dionysus and the Mysteries.
What I really find amazing is that such a thing like tragedy was born by a Dionysian cult, because a classic tragedy makes a very Apollonian impression on me.Athenian festivals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian...
We have to keep in mind that philosophy flourished in Athens but it did not prevail, there. Philosophy had no festival at all (has it today?).
Wikipedia thinks that the Panathenaia were the most important festival, but alas, this is maybe a question of perspective.
(I miss the Apaturia in this list ...)
Thorwald wrote: "Wikipedia thinks that the Panathenaia were the most important festival"Well, it's a matter of opinion. But the Panathenaia included Greeks from all of Greece for most of the events, and the Dionysian festival was just for Athenians. (Others might have been allowed in the audience, but not as authors, players, or chorus members.)
Mynheer Peeperkorn's waterfall speech came back to me just the other day when I read the following in Wordsworth's Excursion:Oh! what a joy it were, in vigorous health,
To have a body (this our vital frame
With shrinking sensibility endued,
And all the nice regards of flesh and blood)
And to the elements surrender it
As if it were a spirit! - How divine,
The liberty, for frail, for mortal, man
To roam at large among unpeopled glens
And mountainous retirements, only trod
By devious footsteps; regions consecrate
To oldest time! and, reckless of the storm
That keeps the raven quiet in her nest,
Be as a presence or a motion - one
Among the many there; and while the mists
Flying, and rainy vapours, call out shapes
And phantoms from the crags and solid earth
As fast as a musician scatters sounds
Out of an instrument; and while the streams
(As at a first creation and in haste
To exercise their untried faculties)
Descending from the region of the clouds,
And starting from the hollows of the earth
More multitudinuous every moment, rend
Their way before them - what a joy to roam
An equal among mightiest energies;
And haply sometimes, with articulate voice,
Amid the deafening tumult, scarcely heard
By him that utters it, exclaim aloud,
"Rage on, ye elements! let moon and stars
Their aspects lend, and mingle in their turn
With this commotion (ruinous though it be)
From day to night, from night to day, prolonged!"
I don't think poor MP could resign himself to the loss of his vigorous health.
Thanks, Peter. Ironically, I found myself citing Wordsworth in an entirely different setting just last night -- "Tintern Abbey" (1798) for a discussion of Trollope's
Can You Forgive Her?
(1865). A touch of romanticism a legacy creeping into later literature?
There's some Wordsworth for almost every occasion. Even in criminal trials, as we know from Rumpole!
Everyman wrote: "There's some Wordsworth for almost every occasion. Even in criminal trials, as we know from Rumpole!"Tell us more, for those of us who haven't been following -- even just give us a link?
Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "There's some Wordsworth for almost every occasion. Even in criminal trials, as we know from Rumpole!"Tell us more, for those of us who haven't been following -- even just give u..."
You don't know Rumpole? Rumpole of the Bailey?
Marvelous stories about a crusty old English criminal defense barrister ("never plead guilty") written by John Mortimer, himself an esteemed barrister. Rumpole is forever smoking small cigars, drinking cheap wine, suffering from She who Must be Obeyed, and quoting Wordsworth.
"Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy"
Everyman wrote: "Rumpole is forever smoking small cigars, drinking cheap wine..."Château Thames Embankment! Pomeroy's Wine Bar still has something on our local courthouse boîte.
Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "There's some Wordsworth for almost every occasion. Even in criminal trials, as we know from Rumpole!"Tell us more, for those of us who haven't been following -- eve..."
Nice one! I have only just discovered Wordsworth (better late than never!), and I have not read any Rumpole stories either. Perfect summer holiday reading!
(I have to say that I am finding things picking up considerably in interest. I frankly got a bit bored with the endless bickering of N and S, which would probably have made a lot more sense if I had been reading it with the background of a German intellectual of the 1920s, but which I have to admit having found, well, less than grippingly engaging. Was I alone in this?)
Anyhow, it's a short section, but full of events. What do people make of them?